< November 3	November 5 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 16:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have categories in this form for countries where there is no official distinction between a city and a town, but there is in Portugal. I have moved the articles to Category:Cities in Portugal and category:Towns in Portugal so this is now a redundant intermediate link of a type which does not exist for any other country. Delete CalJW 22:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Political office-holders of Aboriginal governments in Canada --Kbdank71 15:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to include "of the aboriginal peoples in Canada" in the title of this category. Moving "Aboriginal" to the beginning of the category name more clearly identifies who belongs in the category, and is more concise. Kurieeto 21:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Category is intended for political offices within aboriginal bands/nations. Your rename would open it to people of aboriginal extraction holding any political office in Canada. -The Tom 23:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is Ethel Blondin-Andrew mis-categorized then? Her Wiki article currently only describes her as being a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons, and has no information about her ever holding a political office within an Aboriginal band or nation. Her presence in the category is why I assumed it had a scope of any Aboriginal holding any political office in Canada. Kurieeto 00:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blondin-Andrew. Yes, she's miscategorized. If we turn the category into "holders of any political office in Canada who are of aboriginal extraction" (which IMHO is reinforced by the construction Category:Aboriginal political office-holders in Canada) then we open the door to Category:Francophone political office-holders in Canada and Category:Jewish political office-holders in Canada and so on. The "offce-holders" category is sorted on the basis of the office, not the person. Category:Canadian politicians, on the other hand, is sorted by the characteristics of the person, so Category:Aboriginal Canadian politicians would be fine. -The Tom 18:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The existing title doesn't communicate that intention -- it communicates "politician who is aboriginal". Not to mention that other than the Category:Assembly of First Nations chiefs subcat, this was entirely empty, so nothing was communicated by existing usage, either. If we genuinely want to separate the local chiefs from the Bartlemans and Blondin-Andrews, a better title would be Category:First Nations band chiefs; political figures at other levels could instead be filed in a new Category:First Nations politicians (of which the band chiefs category would also be a subcat, of course). The Tom's original intention is more logical, I think, but the existing category name isn't clear enough to serve that purpose. Bearcat 00:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How about Category:First Nations government politicians instead. The word "Band" is rapidly losing ground among First Nations and we might not necessarily only want chiefs in that category. A separate category for Category:First Nations politicians for the likes of Ethel Blonding-Andrew and Elijah Harper. And Category:First Nations leaders should remain. Thoughts? Luigizanasi 01:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:First Nations government politicians still has some potential of being misinterpreted as redundant ("government politicians") or open to a wider range of political figures than was intended. I accept that "band chiefs" might not be the best term, but whatever is used has to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. Bearcat 01:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would recommend keeping the term "Aboriginal" in the highest-level category for this subject, as has been done with Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada. This would allow the inclusion of political leaders of the Inuit and Métis, for example Jose Kusugak of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Clément Chartier of the Métis National Council. Leaders of Métis Settlements could also be included, as could leaders of Inuit communities. Because this category will remain under Category:Political office-holders in Canada I would propose Category:Aboriginal political office-holders in Canada for the highest-level Aboriginal category.

Regarding sub-categories, my comments on discussion that has taken place is as follows. Category:First Nations political office-holders would be an acceptable general sub-category of the proposed Category:Aboriginal political office-holders in Canada. I also agree that "band" is falling out of favour. Category:Chiefs of First Nations (or if desired Category:Chiefs of First Nations governments) could be the next sub-category. Both of these are unambiguous, and would only miss our intended scope if a First Nation does not use the title "Chief" for its leader. I can't currently recall an example of that, but with over 600 First Nations in Canada it's not out of the question. In this case Category:Leaders of First Nations governments could be used. Kurieeto 13:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed less-awkward, more-explicit wording Category:Political office-holders of aboriginal governments in Canada Category:Political office-holders of Aboriginal governments in Canada OR Category:Political office-holders in aboriginal governments in Canada Category:Political office-holders in Aboriginal governments in Canada. Important to communicate that that the offices are tied to Aboriginal governance, not just the people in them. Thoughts? -The Tom 18:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would support either of these renamings, but I also request for consideration that "aboriginal" be capitalized to "Aboriginal". Please see Aboriginal peoples in Canada#Capitalization. This capitalization is done for other ethnic terms such as "African", "Mexican", or "Japanese". Kurieeto 18:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Agreed. The Tom 18:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with any rename that's both culturally appropriate and unambiguous. Bearcat 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering this seems to now be immersed in a sea of turquoise, let me formally say alternative Rename to Category:Political office-holders of Aboriginal governments in Canada. Can I get a few official supports so this won't die a death of no-consensus-itis? The Tom 19:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kurieeto 19:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There you go. Luigizanasi 21:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. Martin 15:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly redundant with Category:Wikipedia publicity, so merge. Radiant_>|< 11:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. -- Beland 23:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted fron Oct 29th due to broken announcement link from category ∴ here…♠ 21:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge - I was initially so resistant to this that I relisted it, but I've seen the light. I'd like to fit and define Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers more effectively into this area. ∴ here…♠ 22:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - Silly vanity categories unless you want also Category:Encyclopedia Britannica publicity, Category:Funk and Wagnall's publicity, Category:New York Times publicity, Category:BBC publicity, ad nauseum for every amateur & professional reference source in the world. Which you don't. 12.73.194.67 23:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. — Instantnood 15:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 10:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be some part of the rivalry/hatred at the category's only member, which has been vandalized several times. There is an appropriate category already made for this school, Category:International Baccalaureate schools. -- Kjkolb 18:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marskell 15:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-evidently POV. Valiantis 15:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As avove. Alan Liefting 08:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete angrily. siafu 22:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ditto. Bill37212 23:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Martin 15:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been used historically for both Wiki administrators and business administrators. At the moment, it is empty, with each of these types of entries having separate categories. As a result, an opportunity exists to delete this redundant category, which I recommend. This will fix the cleanup at the same time. Ian Cairns 15:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per my introduction Ian Cairns 15:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Sounds like a good time to remove it. TexasAndroid 17:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator in light of new proposal.

Rename to be consistent with the other 49 states (see Category:United States geography by state). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The proposed name sounds quite wrong because Hawaii is a noun. We should rename all the other categories to the "Geography of" form which is used for countries instead. CalJW 22:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and support the suggestion of User:CalJW -Mayumashu 13:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per CalJW. Category:Geography of Hawaii would be better, and its sibling categories should be renamed to fit. siafu 23:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in light of the proposal to rename all the geographies of U.S. states. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «»Who?¿?^meta 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename:

• Category:Chinese Navy ship classes --> Category:People's Liberation Army Navy ship classes
• Category:Chinese Navy submarine classes --> Category:People's Liberation Army Navy submarine classes.

Referring to the People's Liberation Army Navy as the "Chinese Navy" is both POV and inaccurate. Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV, we are to spell out "People's Republic of China" fully since the "the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China". In this case, it is better to use the official name of the entity. The PLAN is not called the "Chinese Navy" in Chinese. In Chinese, the term "Chinese Navy" (中華海軍) is used (officially if at all) to refer to the Republic of China Navy (commonly known in the west as the "Taiwanese Navy"). We must not confuse these two navies! Jiang 10:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed, and categorise under category:People's Liberation Army Navy ships/submarines. Rename category:Chinese Navy ships as category:Chinese navy ships category:naval ships of China, and category:Chinese Navy submarines as category:People's Liberation Army Navy submarines. Wikipedia:naming conventions (categories) may also be relevant here. — Instantnood 13:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (modified 15:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Agreed. rename category:Chinese Navy ships as category:Chinese navy ships--Jiang 03:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Naval ships of China is preferable to Category:Chinese navy ships, as it is a subcat of Category:Naval ships and there's been an ongoing drive to purge nationality-foo from "by country" categories. I realize Cat:Naval ships is nowhere near consistent yet on this score. -The Tom 21:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• agreed rename to Category:Naval ships of China--Jiang 21:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me we can categorize any naval ship from any China under "Chinese navy ship". (and further subcategorize from there). 132.205.45.148 21:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems we're dealing with two seperate issues. "Chinese navy" (or just as well "Navy of China" or "Navies of China") would work well as a parent that could potentially hold both modern naval categories (ROC and PROC), as well as categories for historical national entities of China (e.g. Manchukuo, Sinkiang) and the parent would work well for any articles that may arise about Chinese imperial navies. siafu 23:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree that Category:Naval ships of China is a good parent category from which sub-categories can break down into ROC, PLAN, and Imperial naval forces as need be. Joshbaumgartner 18:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to "Cities, towns and villages in Foo". «»Who?¿?^meta 00:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least these should become "Inhabited places in..." but if someone can suggest something better than "Inhabited places", then it might well be worth changing that part of the names too. Grutness...wha? 06:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The appropriate term is overall term is surely "settlements", but we don't use it for categories. It seems that settlments in Serbia are divided into cities and villages. I suggest that we rename these categories, "cities in" , and I will rename the associated lists and create any necessary categories for villages in the near future. I have just finished clearing the Portugal category, so Serbia and Montenegro is now the largest European country which does not have a cleared and standardised main category, and I will attend to it next. CalJW 22:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

I created these categories. We cannot change them into "Cities in...", since only some of these places are cities, and the other places are villages. These categories are supposed to include all, cities, towns and villages. If you rename these categories, they should have some title like "Cities, towns and villages in...". Only that would cover all. And what is wrong with the main Serbia-Montenegro category? What can be improved there? PANONIAN 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Also, I do not see why the categories should be renamed at all. What is wrong with the title "inhabited places" and what is big difference between "inhabited places of" and "inhabited places in"? PANONIAN 02:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ok, here is my proposal, if you rename these categories, then you should rename not only these 3, but also these ones:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cities_in_Serbia_and_Montenegro
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cities_in_Kosovo
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Places_in_Kosovo

So, you maybe should rename all these 6 categories into:

• "Cities, towns and villages in Serbia and Montenegro"
• "Cities, towns and villages in Serbia"
• "Cities, towns and villages in Montenegro"
• "Cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina"
• "Cities, towns and villages in Kosovo"

Like this one:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cities%2C_towns_and_villages_in_Hungary

PANONIAN 03:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Proposal: What about Category:Communities in Serbia etc.? --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Well, it is too undefined. With the title "communities" the one can put there various communities of any kind. This should be category specifically for inhabited places (cities, towns and villages). So, why not vote about this? User:PANONIAN

---

Voting:

Support for the name "Cities, towns and villages in SCG/Serbia/Montenegro/Vojvodina/Kosovo"

• --PANONIAN 14:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• --Sasa Stefanovic 14:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• --Jovanvb 14:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• --<bstyle="color:blue;">Dungo (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• --Cécilou 15:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. «»Who?¿?^meta 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. These two have essentially the same problem: they're all-encompassing and therefore pointless. (I added the two separate sections to simply avoid breaking the CFD links from their pages) Phoenix-forgotten 04:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete superseded by the Wikipedian category tree Ian Cairns 15:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Alan Liefting 08:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 23:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. «»Who?¿?^meta 17:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete POV category, intends to list all people at List_of_people_widely_considered_eccentric which has an originalresearch warning. Arniep 01:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete List is amusing but category is unnecessary. Ashibaka (tock) 01:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate POV. Also I'm sure that 90 per cent of the people with Wikipedia articles have been considered eccentric by somebody at some time in their lives. Oh, and note also Category:Notable eccentrics, which has only one article filed within it and should probably be put to the same merciful fate as this one. Bearcat 03:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I recall rm'ing from the first sentence of Jeremy Bentham the "widely considered eccentric" bit as POV. Virtually every famous artist, and a fair number of philosophers and scientists could be called such. Much to broad and POV. Marskell 15:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per above comments. Alan Liefting 08:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I suppose there's an objective rating scale and a vetted poll of those doing the "wide considering"? siafu 23:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.